Skip to main content

About this Show





San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 24 (225 MHz)






Oska 4, San Francisco 4, Us 3, Mr. Sanchez 2, Scott Sanchez 2, Dpw 2, Bonilla 2, Sfgov 2, Fong 1, Allison 1, Derek Smith 1, Bob Palaceo 1, Chu 1, Cynthia 1, Fung 1, Robinson 1, Hwang 1, Mr. Hwang 1, Harrison 1, Vaness 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    March 22, 2013
    3:30 - 4:00am PDT  

no. he was talking about an after season tiewrnment and emails and the commissioners vote that's it. it's final. this gentleman cant coach. we have 60 parents fit to be tied. he coaches 30 of these kids. he came from the wrong side of the trucks. these kids respect him and he is very, very just -- i mean the kids are just crest fallen and i am asking this commission to shoin a little daylight on what is it with rec and parks youth baseball? we got an email to show you. his decision is final. there is no one to appeal to. this is not what we want to teach the kids. if there is a legitimate reason that's fine. if we could have a discussion about it let's do it and show the kids this is the mistake he made. now if we're
just going to treat them as disposable when they don't meet our needs and whims. i worked for rec and park and after school funds and under gm burns and robinson and i was told as an employee we're there to serve the public. our petty disagreements with somebody doesn't quiz qualify them from participating in this. >> >> and it's like me getting an argument and you can't come to my park. sometimes we can disagree and have intelligent conversations. we don't have to take it out on the kids. give me 10 more seconds. i came here to head off. we talked at supervisor chu's office and come here and go in peace and try to make something happen here. that's what i am here for. i would love to entertain a
discussion with the commissioners to come to a resolution to this problem. put the kids first. >> thank you. >> richard fong. >> i don't want to get in the way of all of you and your appetite getting close to the dinner hour, but i just wanted to make more comments about animal control welfare. they're dealing with the issue of licensing, dog walkers, and when there was bob palaceo as commissioner and [inaudible] was here, the acting superintendent, a big fellow quite a while ago before he went south to bel air. what happens there was a discussion on whether or not
such and such dog walkers would use the park facilities. the issue i want to bring it has to do with insurance, whether or not they have insurance. there was something about the grandfather clause. that wasn't voted on when it was before them but for myself i would think people with responsibility if there is an accident that comes up a mauling or a dog fight there is insurance. it wasn't when they issue the permits and try to apply the grandfather clause so when it comes up again i will be present and i hope i would have the support of the commissioners. thank you sir. >> thank you. >> is there anyone else that would like to make general
public comment on item 10? seeing none this item is closed. we are now on item 11 which is closed session. conference with legal counsel. anyone that would like to make public comment on item 11? public comment is closed. commissioners, we do need to vote whether to hold closed session so i need a motion and a second. >> moved. >> second. >> it's been moved and seconded. so moved. >> >> closed session. >> motion not to disclose. seconds. >> moved and seconded. all in favor? so moved. >> great. thank you. we are on item 12. commissioners matters. commissioners. >> >> i'm sorry commissioner bonilla. >> i am waiting to be called.
>> just nodding off here. >> okay. yeah i would like -- because i think we have some questions that were raised on beacon at halter house park because there are questions raised about transparency and i am dumbfounded on who really supports the creation of this . i have not seen any supporters in previous meetings or in previous years in terms of the creation of this , and because i have questions about where the resources would come for the creation of that i think this item needs to see a lot more sunshine and i think that we need to consider putting it on
the agenda for future discussion. >> commissioner, if i could respond to that and we are happy to handle it however you want to handle it but i think there is confusion about the process -- >> [inaudible] >> okay. the answer is this will -- as a factual answer this will come before the commission before a trail is built. we go through a approval process and it ends back with you. >> right. but my understanding is the decision is made to do this trail and we're only looking at is the design elements, not for this , and not whether to do this or not to do this so i would like to see us have some discussion on whether we do the. >> commissioner harrison.
>> yeah, i agree with commissioner bonilla on this. also i would like some explanation on the treasure island thing and the comments on the coach if that is possible. >> i'm not aware of the issues that came before you in public comment so i will research them and figure out an appropriate way to report back. >> thank you. >> any public comment? seeing none public comment is closed. item 13 is new business agenda setting. commissioners public comment? no public comment is closed. 14 is communications. public comment? seeing none it is closed and 15 is adjournment. >> i move to adjourn. >> second. >> thank you.
>> good evening and welcome to the march 20, 2013 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. preceding officers this evening is hwang and joined this
evening by commissioner fung and honda. at the controls is the board's legal assistant. >> i'm cynthia the board's director. and we are also joined from members who have matters before the board and scott sanchez is here, and city administrator and also representing the planning department and commission. joseph dufy is here representing the building of inspection. and we are joined by derek smith he is a health program coordinator at the department of health tobacco free project. >> if you could go over the meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in. >> the board requests that you turn off all phones and pagers so they will not disturb the
proceedings and carry on the conversations in the hallway. the board's rules of presentation are as follows, appellant's and permit holders and department representatives each has seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttals. people affiliated with these parties much include their comments in the 7 and three minute periods. the members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttals. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, members of the public who wish to speak on an item are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to the podium, and the speaker cards and pen are available on the left side of the podium. >> the board welcomes your comments and suggestions there are survey forms on the left side of the podium, if you have questions about requesting a rehearing or schedules, speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting or call
the board office tomorrow morning. the board office is located at 1650 mission street, room 304 between duvos and vaness avenues this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco television, sfgov tv, cable channel 78 and dvds of this meeting are available for purchase directly from sfgov tv. thank you for your attention, at this point in time we will conduct our swearing in process, if you intend to testify at any of tonight's hearings and ask the board to give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and raise your right-hand and say i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. please note that any member of the public may speak without taking this oath purchase pursuant. >> do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
>> thank you. >> we have two housekeeping items, first with 5 a on the cal endar which is a rehearing and it has been withdrawn. and the second has to do with item number nine, 13.004, i want to make sure that the parties to the matter are here, could i see the hands of the appellant and the permit holder? they have requested that this matter be continued and with the president's content we can give the parties to speak to that to see if we are going to hear that case. if we could have the parties come forward and we will start with the appellant, and three minutes, madam president?
>> yes. >> you will each have three minutes to present to the board specifically on the question as to whether or not this case should be heard on a different night. >> it is the appellant's request? >> that is correct. >> i requested the alternate date because i have a second permit that i also appealed and it is for the address 2130, the second appeal has a hearing day of may 15th, it was for renovations of the interior done by the future tenant. and since this involves the same things as to whether the
store, this is a retail store, i wanted to merge the two cases together. the second permit was passed by that time in the commission. the first was not given to the timing commissioner. so, there is a question of two different yeses and nos. but, again, in both cases, i am asserting that this is a formal retail store for that reason. >> thank you. >> good evening, everyone, thank you very much for your time. my name is cristina tan, i am
the property manager. we heard that she wants to combine it for the same property, but i want to stress is that although those permits were filed for the same property, the rational behind this permit is different, the first is to perform seismic upgrade. this on fillmore street has been occupied by a permit and was build in 1900 and has a brick foundation and the landlord has not been able to update the foundation because based on contractors they said that it would saying significant remodeling and efforts there is no way that work could have been done. >> this is the first opportunity that they have to make this building safe. this is related to public safety. it is really important to the landlord that this building is safe, for not only the dozen or
so people above the building but the hundreds of people that enter into the retail space on a daily basis. i have included pictures, i guess this does not show it. but any way, i have included pictures and exhibit. >> on the overhead. >> back where you had it. >> okay. >> it takes a little time. so i have included pictures of the foundation, it is a brick foundation. i have reports, contractor reports which is included in the exhibit, that state that this is a permiter brick foundation and it has nothing to do with oska, alleging that the two permits are related because it is related to build out of oska. this was filed regardless of who moves into the space, the landlord would have applied for this permit. so it could have been who knows, any company that wanted to move in. so again i kindly, urge the board to give us this opportunity to present our case. i think that we have very good
evidence to show that this is really for public safety and has nothing to do with oska and we would like that opportunity today to continue with the hearing and allow us to present our case and you will see that it is clearly about public safety. i live in the building. i am a native of san francisco and i lived through the 1989 earthquake. and i want this building to be safe. for not only myself, my two dogs that live in the building and everyone else that enters this building. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> anything from the department, mr. sanchez? >> thank you, good evening, president and members of the board, scott sanchez. the permit that is for tonight was not reviewed by the planning department because as noted in the scope it is to do foundation up grades, replace the water damage, studs and also ada up grades of the front door and a separate permit which has been appealed from the change of use to oska.
that is formal retail use and we found that it is not retail use that is a separate permit to the tenant to establish the use and that is controlled for appeal as noted on may 15th. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez, if we took action tonight, and the filing of the second appeal would not have been because it is a separate permit would not effect this permit; is that correct?? >> they are separate scopes of work, so if you were to take action tonight and approve the permit. then the structural up grades would be performed and you would still have the ability at the hearing in may to deny the permit for the use that is proposed to go in there and they would have to propose another tenant to go in there. >> thank you. >> okay. >> we can take public comment on this is there anyone that wants to speak under public comment? >> okay, so seeing none, commissioners, if you have a motion, it can be entertained otherwise we can just move back
into our regular calendar. >> there is no motion. >> this case will be heard in order then. there is no motion to continue it. we will move to item number one which is public comment on any item that is not on tonight's calendar. is there a member of the public who wishes to speak on that item, please step forward. hi, i'm jim patrick and i like to talk about an upcoming item that i believe that you going to take testimony on. >> is it on tonight's calendar? >> yes, it is not the place. >> i heard that you will not take testimony, i think that is what came up in the last board meeting. >> i have no problem waiting,
mind you, but i want to be sure that the testimony gets in. >> we are going to have a moment here. >> okay.
>> given that this is a matter that it pending on the docket for today, we will not be accepting public comment. >> all right. i want to talk about it now. >> right. and it is our practice as a board not to accept public comment on a matter that is currently agendaized. >> that is not right. >> that is our practice >> on the instructions to
public comment, which is right here, for everyone to see, it says, when the agenda item has already been reviewed in the public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the board has closed the public hearing, which i believe applies to us you are your opportunity to address the board must be exercised during the public comment portion of the calendar. the way that i read that is that we are allowed to dress the board during the public comment. we are willing to defer until later. but the way i read your own instructions suggests that we can make public comment right now. >> okay. thank you for pointing that out. >> let me momentarily take a moment and look at it again.
>> how many people wish to speak during public comment? >> okay. if you are sort of hedging now and may speak later, could you raise your hand, i would rather over include rather than have a small number here. if you think that you might possibly speak during public comment, please raise your hand. >> i believe the issue. >> no, sir, let me do this. so 9 people, i am going to limit you to one and a half minutes each, or actually one minute. >> all right. thank you very much. commissioners. i have wanted to bring new data to you representative to appeal
12-226, not brought up at a previous meeting. number one i have worked hard with the public health department and it is clear that the measurements to the bathroom are from the front door to the bathroom door. i have an e-mail which from eraes who is the inspect at ther and given that it is more than 200 feet this should fail on the face value. number two is... >> 30 seconds. >> okay, number two is the forms, that were filled out for the application were not complete and as i looked at the file, and they are still not complete and as i got an e-mail she said yes they are not complete. but of course, they know what they mean and it deals with the waste water dumping. this application was not complete when it was filled out, a permit never should have been issued. thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening, my name is
allison row, referring to the overhead, we have given the department's maps of the location, there are three potential locations of this truck. the fire department, the fire marshal, the health department, and dpw all have different addresses. the dpw very own permit lists conflicting addresses both 84, second street and 49 feet northwest of the corner, 49 feet which is so confusing and we talked for a year is 92nd street that is on the dpw very own file that we just saw a half hour ago. this 90 second street makes bathroom further away no matter how you measure, the department of public health or works does not understand to tell us if they have approved it with sidewalk service or, interior.
they have a statement that the sidewalk service is not allowed and it is highlighted in yellow. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for hearing our comments. can i just have it on the... please state your name. >> charlie you. could i have it on the overhead the whole time. >> so my beef with dpw is that there is a 300 foot notice requirement and they have been using the mid point for the block to draw the radius, when they should be using the mid point of the block six. what occurs is that businesses that are 500 feet away from the food truck get noticed and businesses that are 100 feet away don't get noticed that makes no sense, the block face is defined through the code and even on the website tool it draws the radius the way that i want them to draw it but they choose to move it a block and a
half up. and dpw's application of the laws is arbitrary and mr. hwang said that it is 300 feet away and how could that be, they are doing something weird. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> hi, my name is keith, and i am not affiliated with any business in the neighborhood. impart of the neighborhood in the sense that i walk and drive those blocks frequently to get from the financial district to my facility. i know that you don't make policy decisions but this is public comment but i will note that the last thing that this block needs is another coffee per vaier particularly a truck that blocks the sidewalk, and
it can con gest the traffic further. i am happy to know that there are things that you could deny this application and i hope that you do, you know, pay attention to what you are going to do and hopefully at the end of the day this application will not be allowed to exist, thank you very much. >> next speaker please? >> hi, i'm gary, i'm the applicant. i have gotten no rest in 15 calls from the department of public health over the last week. >> and i have spoken to reyes at length about every single issue and we are in compliance with the department of public health and the department of public works. >> thank you. >> my name is deborah lane and i'm gary's wife and also an architect. i would say that measuring is not always perfect, different
people get different measurements it all should be the same it is not an exact science. and the codes, specifically states that the zoning that dpw may consider, its not written as an edict and it is a big difference, most zoning code is written as shall. this is written as may consider. but it is also, we have complied with the dpw's regulations as they are written. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> any other speakers? >> hello my name is karin smith and i manage the property in san francisco that houses four restaurants that wanted to put a food truck in front of my building and we successfully were able to appeal it and deny the rm